The Trinity doctrine

[Ron Amnsn]

33 minutes ago, phkrause said:

I'm a Jew! I have excepted it!!!!!! So what if other Jews don't except the trinity! As I've said, its neither here or there. We have a number of Jewish Adventist pastors and they work with Jews. They don't seem to put the emphasis on the trinity as do you and a few others, they put it on Jesus, who by the way also is a problem for Jews!!!!! So for you to emphasize that the trinity is a problem for Jews is pretty small to us compared to "Jesus." Jesus is a much bigger deal to Jews than the trinity will ever be! Period!!

With all due respect, I suspect that you were raised Christian rather than Jewish.  As an SDA you probably believe that large portions of God's Word found in the Books of Moses are obsolete because they have been superseded by the Protestant interpretation of the New Testament.  That is considerably different than the Jews for whom the apostle Paul worked.  Your attitude toward Jews is also noticeably different than apostle Paul's.  Different gospel, apparently.

[debbym]

God remains on the throne, Christ mediates before the throne, the Spirit of God ministers the intercession to Christ in the world.

God is also described as omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.  In Christ the Godhead dwelt in it's fullness.

Christ lived as a man dependent on the power of the Holy Spirit without measure, and in complete faith and obedience to His Father's will.

as to the physical properties of God and the aspects of God the nature of His person(s)... it is in a realm beyond our understanding, it feels to me that if i need to make some judgement about the specifics of the person of God that i am talking about God not behind his back but still uncomfortably in front of God as if he was somewhere else.

when we step into eternity i don't think anyone is not going to be surprised and amazed to learn more about the nature of the being of God... who we do know by faith is our creator, sustainer, redeemer, and sanctifier and one day renovator... the one who loves with eternal divine love. now we see in part then one day we shall know even as we are known.  Until then why is it a fuss if we think differently... is not what matters our walking in agreement with God as we understand?  Love mercy, do Justice and walk humbly with your God. no two people have identical minds or identical experiences or identical views of God anyway.

[Kevin H]

3 hours ago, phkrause said:

I'm a Jew! I have excepted it!!!!!! So what if other Jews don't except the trinity! As I've said, its neither here or there. We have a number of Jewish Adventist pastors and they work with Jews. They don't seem to put the emphasis on the trinity as do you and a few others, they put it on Jesus, who by the way also is a problem for Jews!!!!! So for you to emphasize that the trinity is a problem for Jews is pretty small to us compared to "Jesus." Jesus is a much bigger deal to Jews than the trinity will ever be! Period!!

One of my professors, Dr. Jim Fleming, was also a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem Israel. He told how one of his coworkers in Hebrew University (sadly he did not name him) is a Rabbi who is the world's leading scholar on second temple Judaism. This Rabbi says that the Christian concept of the trinity was actually developed by second temple Rabbis to explain Old Testament Biblical imagery to a society that has been more influenced by Greek thought. Fleming says that there was a view of the trinity that both Jews and Gentile Christians believed until the church-synagogue split in 135 AD, where the Jews started to hold a oneness of God that rejected the Threeness, and the gentiles focused more on the 3ness. For more study may I recommend: http://www.biblicalresources.net/product.cfm?product=32

I would also like to recommend a wonderful book by Rabbi James L. Kugel "The God of Old: Inside the Lost World of the Bible" https://www.amazon.com/God-Old-Inside-World-Bible/dp/0743235851

[8thdaypriest]

14 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

As you probably know, I've asked several times here on CA for anyone to show how they do such testing, or point us to an SDA publication that teaches the laity how to do such testing, and to share some EGW passages that passed the test along with some passages that were inconclusive and some passages that failed and why.  No response so far.  I understand the reluctance to list the passages that fail because some SDA's wouldn't know how to deal with those.  But there are many passages where a test would necessarily come out inconclusive because they go beyond what is written in Scripture.  If a person hasn't found dozens of these, I strongly suspect that they don't test at all and/or don't know how to test something by Scripture.

14 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

 

There are several threads where the inspiration of EGW has been questioned.  Things like children with "wings" in the new earth, Jesus in the wrong clothing for the Most Holy Place, "amalgamation of man and beast" "seen in certain races", etc. etc. etc. 

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, jackson said:

But the most valuable teaching of the Bible is not to be gained by occasional or disconnected study. Its great system of truth is not so presented as to be discerned by the hasty or careless reader. Many of its treasures lie far beneath the surface, and can be obtained only by diligent research and continuous effort. The truths that go to make up the great whole must be searched out and gathered up, "here a little, and there a little." Isaiah 28:10.  {Ed 123.2}

EGW takes the scriptural quote (Is. 28:10) completely out of context.  The subject matter of Is 28 is not an encouragement to study, it is a warning to Judah and Ephraim about spouting off false prophecies while they are drunk:

And these also stagger from wine and reel from beer: Priests and prophets stagger from beer and are befuddled with wine; they reel from beer, they stagger when seeing visions, they stumble when rendering decisions. All the tables are covered with vomit and there is not a spot without filth.  “Who is it he is trying to teach? To whom is he explaining his message?
To children weaned from their milk, to those just taken from the breast?  For it is: Do this, do that,  a rule for this, a rule for that; a little here, a little there.”  Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people, to whom he said,  “This is the resting place, let the weary rest”; and, “This is the place of repose”— but they would not listen.  So then, the word of the Lord to them will become: Do this, do that, a rule for this, a rule for that;  a little here, a little there — so that as they go they will fall backward;" (Is. 28:7-13)

To me, this is an indication that she was not infallible in her interpretation of scripture.  The fact that a lot of people just swallow whatever she allegedly wrote without checking the scriptural context is an indication that they take her word over the Word of God rather than the other way around.

No knocking EGW - she was an inspired writer.  But an infallible prophet of the order of Isaiah, Daniels, etc?  No way.

[Samie]

NIV 1 Corinthians 8:5-7:  

Quote

5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 

6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. 

7 But not everyone knows this.

Does this explain why many believe otherwise and instead proclaim "there is but one God - the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit"?

[B/W Photodude]

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

 

So then, the word of the Lord to them will become: Do this, do that, a rule for this, a rule for that;  a little here, a little there — so that as they go they will fall backward;" (Is. 28:7-13)

To me, this is an indication that she was not infallible in her interpretation of scripture.

Sometimes it helps to read it in the King James:  "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:" Isaiah 28:10 While a text may have occurred in a particular setting, it can well be used for many other situations. Otherwise, if unable to use a little bit here and a little bit there, you could not build any argument if you wondered out of the current chapter of Scripture you are working with. Sometimes you pull verses from all over the Bible in building an opinion. 

I have heard many good preachers use this verse and to me it was very appropriate to what they were saying. And to bump it up a bit, it seems that even God Himself left things all over the place to find and understand. He certainly is capable of having organized the Bible very clearly by topic, but then, you would not need to seriously study Scripture! However, God is a rewarder of them that diligently search for him.

[B/W Photodude]

I do not find it surprising that the concept of the Holy Spirit was a later
developed belief in the Protestant and/or Seventh-day Adventist world. While it
is true that the Trinity was a belief in the Roman Catholic church, it also
occurs to me that much of the RC church was left behind when the Protestant
Reformation occurred. Then the church had to be rebuilt in a process that took
several hundred years and probably is not even done yet in terms of new
knowledge for God's people.

Consider this statement made by John Robinson to the Pilgrims as they were
leaving for America:

    “Remember your church covenant, in which you have agreed to walk
    in all the ways of the Lord, made or to be made known unto you.
    Remember your promise and covenant with God and with one another,
    to receive whatever light and truth shall be made known to you
    from His written word; but withal, take heed, I beseech you, what
    you receive for truth, and compare it and weigh it with other
    scriptures of truth before you accept it; for it is not possible
    the Christian world should come so lately out of such thick
    antichristian darkness, and that full perfection of knowledge
    should break forth at once.”—Martyn, vol. 5, pp. 70, 71. (GC292)

Even Christians prior to the SDA church recognized that the Protestant church
had come out of great darkness and to repeat John Robinson, we could hardly
;have expected to have all doctrines perfectly understood. Consider the founders
of the SDA church. they did not have a seventh day sabbath at the time of the
Great Disappointment. No health reforms, no clear understanding of the
Sanctuary, and other beliefs had not come about.

The fact that the Holy Spirit was not well known was in itself a lesson in
unselfish service. As Jesus said, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is
come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but
whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to
come." John 16:13 The Holy Spirit does not promote Himself. Neither did Jesus,
and neither will the Father in Heaven. If we could all engage in such selfless
service and not seeking to broadcast about what we do, how much better would God
be able to use us in His service. Even Jesus who came to this world and died, He
stated, "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister,
and to give his life a ransom for many." Matthew 20:28

It may be of help in understanding the Holy Sprit if a copy of the current
Sabbath School lessons were obtained and studied as this quarters lessons are
quite interesting.

[Kevin H]

7 hours ago, JoeMo said:

EGW takes the scriptural quote (Is. 28:10) completely out of context.  The subject matter of Is 28 is not an encouragement to study, it is a warning to Judah and Ephraim about spouting off false prophecies while they are drunk:

No knocking EGW - she was an inspired writer.  But an infallible prophet of the order of Isaiah, Daniels, etc?  No way.

If you look at how Bible writers use other texts they fall into 3 categories':

1. Exegesis: This is studying the text in it's original context. What it meant to the original author and to the audience that got that message, and/or the goal of the editors and the audience the text was edited for.
2. Analogies: Taking the principle of the text and applying it to different situations than what the original text applied to but where the principle fits.

3. Homiletical usage or literary usage. Here you are not trying to prove a Biblical point or exegesis, but you take the words because they are a good turn of phrase for what you want to say.

Prophets RARELY do #1, exegesis. While we see this same thing among the Biblical prophets, Mrs. White says that her writings are not to answer questions of exegesis. Exegesis is OUR job. What you mostly find here is that prophets tend to use the Bible in the last two ways. Time after time when you read earlier verses copied by later writers. Mrs. White was not teaching us what Isaiah was teaching. She was using Isaiah's phrase because she can use it to describe how we are to compare scripture with scripture and study the text as much as we are able. We get all freaked out when we discover that the text quoted is not what the text was talking about.

And I'm sorry but prophets of the order of Isaiah, Daniel etc. were just as fallible as Mrs. White. We are going to see as we get closer to the end people are going to throw out the Bible for the same reasons why so many former Adventists throw out Mrs. White.

 

[JoeMo]

8 hours ago, jackson said:

I think there is a deeper meaning here, and an important warning.  In Isa 28:9-10, the Lord says He teaches knowledge precept upon precept and here a little , there a little.But the "worldly wise" see this as incomprehensible foolishness.

 

12 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

While a text may have occurred in a particular setting, it can well be used for many other situations.

What is wrong with taking the Bible literally?  When we try to spiritualize and philosophize everything in scripture, we can make it mean anything we want.  The most common example is:

"So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5) ..."Go, and do thou likewise." Luke 10:37

Do we take the verse "And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, ⁴⁸ where“‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:47-48) to mean that if we don't pluck out our eyes when we see something sinful that we will burn in hell forever and ever? NO!  So why would we take some other lone verse taken out of context as absolute truth?

Like Peter said concerning Paul's writings:

"His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16.

There is a difference between "proof texting" and "contexting".

  Pulling verses together out of context is a very dangerous thing.  It's what satan tried to do to Jesus in the wilderness.  The better we know God's Word, the less likely we are to fall for this kind of ruse; and the less likely we will fall for someone else's incorrect interpretation.

[Gustave]

9 hours ago, Kevin H said:

And I'm sorry but prophets of the order of Isaiah, Daniel etc. were just as fallible as Mrs. White. We are going to see as we get closer to the end people are going to throw out the Bible for the same reasons why so many former Adventists throw out Mrs. White.

 

According to Ellen they were absolutely fallible, & they DIDN'T represent God.

 

The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is NOT God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is NOT represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, NOT His pen." ( Ellen White, Selected Messages, Vol. 1, Chapter One "The Inspiration of the Prophetic Writers")

The above classifies the "inspiration" as "human" - not unlike someone who witnessed Dr. Martin Luther King speaking & was "inspired" to join the Civil Rights Movement.

Ellen claimed she DIRECTLY represented God.

Here is how it worked.

Ellen White
After the passing of the time in 1844 we searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with the brethren, and we studied and prayed earnestly... When they came to the point in their study where they said, "We can do nothing more," the Spirit of the Lord would come upon ME. I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given ME, with instruction as to how WE were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, his mission, and his priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to ME, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given ME." (Review and Herald, May 25, 1905)

1MR 28
Before I stand on my feet, I have no thought of speaking as plainly as I do. But the Spirit of God rests upon me with power, and I CANNOT but speak the words GIVEN me. I dare not withhold one word of the testimony.... I speak the words GIVEN ME by a higher power than human power, and I CANNOT, if I would, recall [retract] one sentence

I could replicate the above type of quote Ad nauseam.

Ellen clarifies that "THE TESTIMONIES" she produces are NOT of human origin - such as the Bible writers - The Testimonies are God's OWN WORDS that come through the medium of Ellen. Not unlike a sock puppet.

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

Ellen clarifies that "THE TESTIMONIES" she produces are NOT of human origin - such as the Bible writers - The Testimonies are God's OWN WORDS that come through the medium of Ellen. Not unlike a sock puppet.

Just cuz Ellen said it doesn't necessarily make it so.  Muhammad also said the Quran is the word of allah quoted directly to him.  That doesn't make it so. 

[Gustave]

11 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Just cuz Ellen said it doesn't necessarily make it so.  Muhammad also said the Quran is the word of allah quoted directly to him.  That doesn't make it so. 

To her adherents it makes it so. The same would apply to devout Muslims.

That's the point.

[JoeMo]

Just now, Gustave said:

To her adherents it makes it so. The same would apply to devout Muslims.

That's the point.

So are you saying that "truth" is relative?  That God told EGW and Muhammad opposite things; and they are both true?

[Gustave]

5 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

So are you saying that "truth" is relative?  That God told EGW and Muhammad opposite things; and they are both true?

No, I'm not saying that.

"Relativism" or Solipsism is evil.

Truth is ONE therefore truth can't maintain separate positions.

SDA theology allows for "present truth" which means that something, at a point of time, can be true YET later that same truth can be error.

 

[joeb]

On 2/6/2017 at 11:17 PM, JoeMo said:

EGW takes the scriptural quote (Is. 28:10) completely out of context.  The subject matter of Is 28 is not an encouragement to study, it is a warning to Judah and Ephraim about spouting off false prophecies while they are drunk:

And these also stagger from wine and reel from beer: Priests and prophets stagger from beer and are befuddled with wine; they reel from beer, they stagger when seeing visions, they stumble when rendering decisions. All the tables are covered with vomit and there is not a spot without filth.  “Who is it he is trying to teach? To whom is he explaining his message?
To children weaned from their milk, to those just taken from the breast?  For it is: Do this, do that,  a rule for this, a rule for that; a little here, a little there.”  Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people, to whom he said,  “This is the resting place, let the weary rest”; and, “This is the place of repose”— but they would not listen.  So then, the word of the Lord to them will become: Do this, do that, a rule for this, a rule for that;  a little here, a little there — so that as they go they will fall backward;" (Is. 28:7-13)

To me, this is an indication that she was not infallible in her interpretation of scripture.  The fact that a lot of people just swallow whatever she allegedly wrote without checking the scriptural context is an indication that they take her word over the Word of God rather than the other way around.

No knocking EGW - she was an inspired writer.  But an infallible prophet of the order of Isaiah, Daniels, etc?  No way.

Well, I'd say there is some real dispute as to what you see as the accepted reading of Isaiah 28:10.  I looked up 73 versions of the Bible on studying this, and out of the 73, 4 were NT only so they get tossed out immediately as being N/A.  Four more versions translated it the way you are claiming is the only way to read it.  The other 65 versions translated it the same way the KJV does.  So, on which side is the vast majority of the evidence?  I'd say on the side of Ellen White's usage of the text.

[Kevin H]

Mrs. White is talking about the message she is to give and how she does not want to make it any softer than the importance God has given to it, as it was in her nature to do. But this is not quoting God.

[LifeHiscost]

19 hours ago, JoeMo said:

So are you saying that "truth" is relative?  That God told EGW and Muhammad opposite things; and they are both true?

God is Love and unless we comprehend His love in the Word we read, we will misunderstand it.

11He replied, “You are permitted to understand the secrets^a of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others are not. 12To those who listen to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But for those who are not listening, even what little understanding they have will be taken away from them. 13That is why I use these parables,

For they look, but they don’t really see. They hear, but they don’t really listen or understand....Matthew 13

That is the primary reason I serve Jesus. "I and the Father are One." No other so called god is a rightful heir of any of creation nor has that Love which gives me life eternal.

…11And this is that testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. ....1 John 5

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[Gustave]

6 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Mrs. White is talking about the message she is to give and how she does not want to make it any softer than the importance God has given to it, as it was in her nature to do. But this is not quoting God.

She gave "messages" on each & every topic that came before the denomination.

 

Ellen White
The testimonies are unread and unappreciated. God has spoken to you. Light has been shining from His word and from the testimonies, and both have been slighted and disregarded. (Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 217)

 

Ellen White
If you lessen the confidence of God's people in the testimonies he has sent them, you are rebelling against God as certainly as were Korah, Dathan and Abirum" (Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 66).

 

Ellen White
Review & Herald Jan 26,1905
The word given me is, 'You are faithfully to reprove those who would mar the faith of the people of God. Write out the things which I shall give you, that they may stand as a witness to the truth till the end of time.' I said, 'If any of the citizens of Battle Creek wish to know what Mrs. White believes and teaches, let them read her published books. My labors would be naught should I preach another gospel. That which I have written is what the Lord has bidden me write. I have not been instructed to change that which I have sent out

 

There are MANY of these types of affirmations in Sister White's writings - she is NOT the authority on anything - if you get her meaning, GOD IS. Ellen was simply a "medium" or "channel".

When Ellen said Lucifer and Michael were archangels it wasn't really her saying it - it was GOD.

The testimonies are word for word what God channeled through Ellen - this is how the Pioneers understood it as well as the flock well after her death.

 

[JoeMo]

14 hours ago, joeb said:

Well, I'd say there is some real dispute as to what you see as the accepted reading of Isaiah 28:10.  I looked up 73 versions of the Bible on studying this, and out of the 73, 4 were NT only so they get tossed out immediately as being N/A.  Four more versions translated it the way you are claiming is the only way to read it.  The other 65 versions translated it the same way the KJV does.  So, on which side is the vast majority of the evidence?  I'd say on the side of Ellen White's usage of the text.

Weird.  I read it in about 25 versions; and I basically got the same message from all 25 versions.  Arguably, it was much more clear in some than in others.  I believe what I read in scripture way more than what I read in the SoP - especially when there appears to be a disagreement.

[LifeHiscost]

Many readers of the Word are more apt to understand this than the Word itself.

• The Moeraki Boulders are discovered on the Koekohe Beach. The beach is spotted pretty nearly 40 kilometers south of Oamaru, in the Otago area of New Zealand.
• The circular boulders are gigantic. They regularly run in size from 0.5 to 2.2 meters in distance across. The greatest of these boulders can weigh up to seven tons.
• Despite the fact that there were numerous more rocks back in the nineteenth century when they were found, with time, just fifty of these rocks stay on the beach today.

 

 

 

 

…39But some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, “Teacher, rebuke Your disciples!” 40“I tell you, He answered, “if they remain silent, the very stones will cry out.” 41As Jesus approached Jerusalem and saw the city, He wept over it… Luke 19

God is !~Jesus saves! 

[JoeMo]

5 minutes ago, jackson said:

I have found that going to  the website   https://www.biblegateway.com  and typing  Isa 28:10 and choosing from 50 different translations you get a better idea of what Isaiah is saying. Also, after choosing the translation there is an addition line that says   http://Isaiah 28:10 in all English translations. You click on that and you get 50 different translations of the verse in question.

I use biblegateway almost exclusively for online bible research.

One amusing translation of Is. 28:10 - 13 comes from The Message translation:

Is that so? And who do you think you are to teach us?  Who are you to lord it over us?  We’re not babies in diapers to be talked down to by such as you—
‘Da, da, da, da, blah, blah, blah, blah. That’s a good little girl,  that’s a good little boy.’”

But that’s exactly how you will be addressed.  God will speak to this people In baby talk, one syllable at a time—  and he’ll do it through foreign oppressors. He said before, “This is the time and place to rest, to give rest to the weary.  This is the place to lay down your burden.”  But they won’t listen.

So God will start over with the simple basics  and address them in baby talk, one syllable at a time—
“Da, da, da, da, blah, blah, blah, blah. That’s a good little girl,  that’s a good little boy.”
And like toddlers, they will get up and fall down, get bruised and confused and lost.

Not saying it's 100% accurate, just saying its amusing.  While there may be some disagreement over the meaning of Is. 28:10, Is. 28:12-13 in almost all translations that God is presenting a warning or judgment against Israel rather than an instruction on how to study.

[Gary K]

16 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I use biblegateway almost exclusively for online bible research.

One amusing translation of Is. 28:10 - 13 comes from The Message translation:

Is that so? And who do you think you are to teach us?  Who are you to lord it over us?  We’re not babies in diapers to be talked down to by such as you—
‘Da, da, da, da, blah, blah, blah, blah. That’s a good little girl,  that’s a good little boy.’”

But that’s exactly how you will be addressed.  God will speak to this people In baby talk, one syllable at a time—  and he’ll do it through foreign oppressors. He said before, “This is the time and place to rest, to give rest to the weary.  This is the place to lay down your burden.”  But they won’t listen.

So God will start over with the simple basics  and address them in baby talk, one syllable at a time—
“Da, da, da, da, blah, blah, blah, blah. That’s a good little girl,  that’s a good little boy.”
And like toddlers, they will get up and fall down, get bruised and confused and lost.

Not saying it's 100% accurate, just saying its amusing.  While there may be some disagreement over the meaning of Is. 28:10, Is. 28:12-13 in almost all translations that God is presenting a warning or judgment against Israel rather than an instruction on how to study.

Hi JoeMo,

When I study the Bible I often find that there is more than a single meaning to any one text.  To me that is the stamp of God's divinity on the Bible.  It is like 1John 3:6.  It tells me that when I abide in Christ I will not sin.  However, I sin, and way too frequently.  So, it also tells me that I stop abiding in Christ way too frequently.  It doesn't mean I'm cast off by God, but it does mean that I allow the devil to get to me and distract my attention away from looking at Jesus, and then I am toast as far as not sinning at that specific time.  

It also tells me whose job it is to accomplish sanctification in my life.  I am to stay connected to Jesus and He is stop me from sinning.  He can't keep me connected without me constantly choosing to keep in contact with Him through prayer and Bible study on a moment by moment basis, and I can't do anything about getting sin out of my life.  I have to just trust Him to do change the motives and yearnings of my heart. 

If I were to take just the surface reading of the text I would miss out on the rest of the good news.  Do you think it is possible that you are doing this with the text from Isaiah?

[Gustave]

30 minutes ago, jackson said:

But in showing how God teaches (precept upon precept ) there is the implicit instruction on how we should study His word- (here a little there a little)

God could have just said "You didn't listen to me so this is my judgment against you." But by showing how He instructs He is showing also how we are to are to learn.

I think it is perfectly reasonable extrapolate from Is 28:10-13 a sound method for understanding scripture. You disagree , but are you also disagreeing with the principle that scripture is its own expositor  and that seemingly obscure verses should only be explained by other Bible verses on the subject that are more clearly understood?

Isaiah 28,10 classifies instruction that comes by way of "precept upon precept" as punishment from the Almighty...

Verse 11 states:  "For with STAMMERING LIPS & ANOTHER TOUNG will I speak to THIS people".

If you want to confound and discipline an individual OR a group of individual you incrementally ratchet  up "RULES" & regulations. This is exactly what Sacred Scripture says happened to the Children of Israel.

[JoeMo]

To be clear, I agree that Yahweh wants us to study his word.  I also believe in studying His word in an orderly and organized manner.  But if we want to tie that to scripture, there is a lot of scripture that provides more clarity and less room for debate than Is. 28:10:

"Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.  But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness." (2 Tim. 2:14-16)

 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. ³⁹ You will have these tassels to look at and so you will remember all the commands of the Lord, that you may obey them and not prostitute yourselves by chasing after the lusts of your own hearts and eyes. ⁴⁰ Then you will remember to obey all my commands and will be consecrated to your God." (Num. 15:38-40)

The only way we can "remember" God's Word is to have been taught and/or studied it.